Labor & Employment
Ex-Associate (a Harvard Law Grad) Dishes on Skadden in Calif. Lawsuit
Posted Jan 8, 2009 7:44 PM CST
By Martha Neil
For seven years, Gary H. Green II handled labor and employment matters as an associate in the Los Angeles office of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom. Now he is apparently putting some of his knowledge of the practice area to personal use, in a pro se lawsuit (PDF) he filed on Dec. 31 in Los Angeles Superior Court.
The suit, which names as defendants the elite New York City-based international law firm known for its mergers and acquisitions work, as well as four Skadden partners, one firm counsel and a Skadden associate, asserts claims for defamation, wrongful termination and alleged labor code violations concerning pay and access to personnel records, among others. It contends that Skadden fired Green early in 2008, after he gave a junior associate a negative review and, according to some Skadden lawyers, potentially made the firm more vulnerable to a malpractice claim by doing so.
In a written statement, Skadden tells Above the Law, which provides a link to the filed complaint, that "the defendants intend to vigorously defend the case and expect to be fully vindicated" but declines to comment specifically on a matter that is currently in litigation.
Green, a 1994 cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, provides a number of criticisms of the perceived inadequacies of his former Skadden colleagues in the 50-page lawsuit. Among them:
At the same time that the firm suddenly terminated him for his alleged "poor judgment" concerning the associate review (his judgment had routinely been rated positively in prior reviews, Green contends), it also was "dumb enough" to document the malpractice issue allegedly created by Green's alleged "intemperate" comments in the review.
And, according to an excerpt of the at-issue October 2007 associate review included in the lawsuit, Green accused both the associate and a Skadden partner with whom he had worked of "incompetence" concerning their claimed failure to investigate underlying facts of a new matter before conducting related interviews.
Green contends that the law firm violated California public policy by terminating him for writing "a critical—but appropriate and factually accurate performance evaluation" submitted in good faith, without conducting a proper factual investigation of what he said in the October 2007 associate evaluation.
Among other relief, his lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, an injunction requiring the law firm to provide him with all of his personnel records and reinstatement to his job at Skadden, as well as promotion to a counsel position. According to the suit, he was making about $300,000 annually around the time that he was terminated.
Updated at 1:30 p.m. Jan. 9 to indicate four partners were named in the suit.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in Web Comment Cost 2 Their Jobs
- NU Law Dean Adjusts 'Super Lawyers' Rankings to Reflect Law School Size
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Jan 8, 2009 8:49 PM CST
Wow. First off, this is going to be an absolutely great show. Thank you ABA (and ATL) for pointing it out. I sense that an early motion to strike portions of the Complaint will precede the Answer. But, how can Skadden possibly come out on this? Nothing will look good. If he kicks their butt, it’s a very public butt-kicking. If they settle, everyone will assume they knew he was going to kick their butt. Conversely, if they fight through trial and prevail, then they establish that this lawyer they used on substantial labor law matters for seven years can’t analyze the merits of a labor suit. On the flip side, they may have a point with the “judgment” thing. I’m going to go out on a limb and say it is a bit chancy for an “associate” to write evaluations saying that other attorneys in the firm (especially partners) are “incompetent.” And, I have to wonder, did he file professional responsibility complaints alleging these attorneys were incompetent? If not, won’t he be impeached with this? And, won’t he also now have to self-report if he in fact did not report attorneys he believed to be incompetent? I hope you will continue to post on this case as it progresses. I am going out right now to buy some more popcorn.
Allen Sheketovits
Jan 9, 2009 4:14 AM CST
Oy vey! Skadden is a big firm, no? Such problems with incompetent attorneys on staff? Who is to think we can do better, this McLeod character? So many questions, and no answers from him, and we are the ones to answer them? What is this a law class? Oy. The next thing you know, he will be blaming it on Scientology.
T. Spence
Jan 9, 2009 7:38 AM CST
Pass a bowl of that popcorn over here. I’ll bring the butter! I too hope you continue to follow this case. No matter who ‘wins’, what firm will want to be associated with this attorney? And there is nothing but PR trouble ahead for the firm. Will clients formely represented by this associate begin to re-examine more closely the work/results of this associate? I agree that it appears that this person has a judgment issue. Certainly, we can see the potential for self-inflicted damage. And we dont have access to the facts as he did. Also, what client wants an attorney that does not stop incompetence when it happens but waits until he’s angry with the firm?
Bill Luzinski
Jan 9, 2009 7:59 AM CST
This guy McLeod is a phony. He posts all over, and is not particularly articulate. He also is writing the phony Ellen blog. What gives?
jose
Jan 9, 2009 8:25 AM CST
Who is going to hire his dude now?
His career is ruined.
2 more weeks until we get reperations for slavery and jim crow laws.
Gregg
Jan 9, 2009 8:45 AM CST
Just curious, how and why is it relevant that this guy is a Harvard Grad? However, since they mentioned it, this is one more example of why big school does not always equal good lawyer.
of course!
Jan 9, 2009 10:35 AM CST
There is a large portion of Harvard law grads are eggheads w/ very little “real world” interpersonal or judgment skills. See Exhibit A (this nut job whose ego is so inflated and/or judgment so poor that he actually thought he would not get into seriously hot water by writing a formal negative critique of a partner. Hasn’‘t this guy heard of delicacy and prudence? )
Ipthereforeiam
Jan 9, 2009 11:33 AM CST
Do you think it ever crossed Green’s mind that he might actually be a complete a$$? That some of the allegedly defamatory statements allegedly made to or about him are, in fact, truthful statements or honest observations about his personality? By the way, the partner he complains about as being incompetent is also a graduate of HLS.
Jadzia
Jan 9, 2009 12:00 PM CST
Skaddenfreude!
B. McLeod
Jan 9, 2009 1:21 PM CST
Meaning, “taking pleasure from the suffering of Skadden”? Well-coined!
Richard Dent
Jan 9, 2009 6:41 PM CST
$300K a year? Not too shabby. Harvard = $$$ (Yes, it’s sour grapes from me!)
theodore Krantz
Jan 11, 2009 2:13 PM CST
What a terribly-written and poorly-structured complaint! Is this the quality of work produced by a Harvard grad after 14 years at Skadden? This certainly reveals that elite firms and universities do not necessarily provide the best quality work.
Have seen this dozens of times in practice… which is why our firm no longer limits our candidate pool to tier 1 schools. Amazingly, some of our most capable and dynamic associates are actually coming from tier 3 and 4 schools! Seems that there is something seriously askew in the candidate selection process of the top law schools.
tory
Jan 11, 2009 2:29 PM CST
Gary H. Green, II
Only a complete and utter head-up-his-arse would use the suffix “II”. It is Jr., you silly twit!
In any case, these Roman numerals are appropriate only for monarchs and popes. Some nouveaux riches families from a few generations back started this distinctly American practice of using these numerals for their progeny, which perhaps might be an acceptable at a stretch to distinguish “the Third” only so long as “the First” remains alive, but after that it is quite ludicrous to use this suffix. Lawyers in particular seem to love using these numerals, but trust me, anyone with any insight at all recognises them for the ridiculous pretence that they are.
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.